There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, in the context of the sentence, when used in conjunction with “a well regulated militia…”, it becomes less obvious that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow universal gun ownership to all citizens.

What people do you think it’s referring to? It certainly says nothing about qualifications. It just says the people have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

The term “the people” can be interepreted as the collective body of persons. If it had said “all persons” have the right to keep and bear arms then that would imply universal ownership. As it is written, it seems to me to refer to the right of the collective to form a WELL REGULATED militia that has the right to the instruments of war.
This does not say that every Tom, Dick, and Harry have the right to handguns. It also doesn’t mention anything about gun ownership for self defense.[/quote]

That’s an obviously faulty interpretation. The 2nd doesn’t mention a right to form militias. It merely mentions as to how necessary well regulated militas are to security. The right named, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. As if I was to say, “The supply of water, being necessary for health, the right of the people to keep and bear water, shall not be infringed.”

182

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, in the context of the sentence, when used in conjunction with “a well regulated militia…”, it becomes less obvious that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow universal gun ownership to all citizens.

What people do you think it’s referring to? It certainly says nothing about qualifications. It just says the people have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

The term “the people” can be interepreted as the collective body of persons. If it had said “all persons” have the right to keep and bear arms then that would imply universal ownership. As it is written, it seems to me to refer to the right of the collective to form a WELL REGULATED militia that has the right to the instruments of war.
This does not say that every Tom, Dick, and Harry have the right to handguns. It also doesn’t mention anything about gun ownership for self defense.[/quote]

It is a pre-amble:

Fish can swim, birds can fly, pancakes rule supreme, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You might also notice that those “people” are not given that right by anyone, it already exists and it shall not be infringed by the US government.

Given the Lockean nature of the US constitution that is really the only interpretation that makes sense, what you are doing is grasping for straws.

183

[quote]orion wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, in the context of the sentence, when used in conjunction with “a well regulated militia…”, it becomes less obvious that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow universal gun ownership to all citizens.

What people do you think it’s referring to? It certainly says nothing about qualifications. It just says the people have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

The term “the people” can be interepreted as the collective body of persons. If it had said “all persons” have the right to keep and bear arms then that would imply universal ownership. As it is written, it seems to me to refer to the right of the collective to form a WELL REGULATED militia that has the right to the instruments of war.
This does not say that every Tom, Dick, and Harry have the right to handguns. It also doesn’t mention anything about gun ownership for self defense.

It is a pre-amble:

Fish can swim, birds can fly, pancakes rule supreme, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You might also notice that those “people” are not given that right by anyone, it already exists and it shall not be infringed by the US government.

Given the Lockean nature of the US constitution that is really the only interpretation that makes sense, what you are doing is grasping for straws.

[/quote]

In any legal document the exact wording, punctuation, and phrasing are important to determining the intent of statement. It cannot be dismissed as preamble. The fact that the second amendment starts with “A well regulated militia…” and lacks the specificity “person” is important to determining the intent of the statement as a whole.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the Constitution, I’m just making the argument that the second amendment has been interpreted different ways by people of different political leanings. To be viewed a legal dogma is shortsighted. This makes the discussion about universal gun ownership open to anyone who wishes to demonstrate their position with facts. To simply assert that it’s your second amendment right and case closed only shows that you cannot defend yourself with logic and reason.

184

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
The fact that the second amendment starts with “A well regulated militia…” and lacks the specificity “person” is important to determining the intent of the statement as a whole.
[/quote]

Do you feel the same way about the 1st and 4th, then? They use ‘people,’ instead of ‘person.’

185

[quote]phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?

You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to carry a weapon. They typically weigh much less than your wife.

Is that your idea of a rebuttal? You are comparing an adult woman to a 3 year old child.

I feel like I have to give you an example to show how retarded your argument is: I claim an adult woman should be allowed to have sex. Your reply “You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to have sex.”

No wonder push won’t give you the time of day.[/quote]

This is typical of what people from the commonwealth come up with. Since they can’t support their ideology with logic they resort to histrionics. They come up with ridiculous scenarios and ludicrous exagerations.

What he is demonstrating is brain washing. I can guarantee you that if you were to put him in a room with Cockney Blue some, other Brits and some Australians they they could go back and forth for hours making the most absurd suggestions and it would make complete sense to them to be asking ridiculous questions about scenarios that are completely unrealistic.

186

[quote]phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?

You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to carry a weapon. They typically weigh much less than your wife.

Is that your idea of a rebuttal? You are comparing an adult woman to a 3 year old child.

I feel like I have to give you an example to show how retarded your argument is: I claim an adult woman should be allowed to have sex. Your reply “You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to have sex.”

No wonder push won’t give you the time of day.[/quote]

Push won’t give me the time of day because he’s still sore from something I said earlier in the thread. He’s also getting frustrated with me because I’m capable of providing a coherent argument in favor of my position while he claims that he’s already done this so he chooses not to address me anymore. It’s clearly a dodge until proven otherwise.

In a unrelated thread someone had mentioned that Liberty implies that we are all born free, but equality is not guaranteed. However, one of the arguments in favor of gun ownership is that it’s the ultimate equalizer. So what is it, you have the right to equality or you don’t?

187

[quote]Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?

You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to carry a weapon. They typically weigh much less than your wife.

Is that your idea of a rebuttal? You are comparing an adult woman to a 3 year old child.

I feel like I have to give you an example to show how retarded your argument is: I claim an adult woman should be allowed to have sex. Your reply “You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to have sex.”

No wonder push won’t give you the time of day.

This is typical of what people from the commonwealth come up with. Since they can’t support their ideology with logic they resort to histrionics. They come up with ridiculous scenarios and ludicrous exagerations.

What he is demonstrating is brain washing. I can guarantee you that if you were to put him in a room with Cockney Blue some, other Brits and some Australians they they could go back and forth for hours making the most absurd suggestions and it would make complete sense to them to be asking ridiculous questions about scenarios that are completely unrealistic. [/quote]

Histrionics must be a new word that you’ve learned recently. This from a guy who just posted a ridiculously long list of glassing incidents in the UK to support his statement. You are a hypocrite.

188

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, I started doing a little cursory research on the Second Amendment and it doesn’t appear to be as clear cut and definitive as you suggest. There have been many different interpretations on the wording and punctuation used, so maybe this debate isn’t as stupid as some may think.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I’m not seeing any ambiguity here…

The ambiguity I was referring to was what exactly did the term “bear arms” mean? It’s been interpreted by some to refer to any and all guns. In the 1800s, however, the term “bear arms” had a more specific meaning, i.e. tools for the act of warfare. There is a subtle difference between these two interpretations. Also, in the context of the sentence, when used in conjunction with “a well regulated militia…”, it becomes less obvious that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow universal gun ownership to all citizens.[/quote]

Again you are very wrong because what comes before a well regulated militia is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You see not only do the people have the right to assemble and petition their government, they also have the right to do so as an armed militia.

189

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
orion wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, in the context of the sentence, when used in conjunction with “a well regulated militia…”, it becomes less obvious that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow universal gun ownership to all citizens.

What people do you think it’s referring to? It certainly says nothing about qualifications. It just says the people have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

The term “the people” can be interepreted as the collective body of persons. If it had said “all persons” have the right to keep and bear arms then that would imply universal ownership. As it is written, it seems to me to refer to the right of the collective to form a WELL REGULATED militia that has the right to the instruments of war.
This does not say that every Tom, Dick, and Harry have the right to handguns. It also doesn’t mention anything about gun ownership for self defense.

It is a pre-amble:

Fish can swim, birds can fly, pancakes rule supreme, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You might also notice that those “people” are not given that right by anyone, it already exists and it shall not be infringed by the US government.

Given the Lockean nature of the US constitution that is really the only interpretation that makes sense, what you are doing is grasping for straws.

In any legal document the exact wording, punctuation, and phrasing are important to determining the intent of statement. It cannot be dismissed as preamble. The fact that the second amendment starts with “A well regulated militia…” and lacks the specificity “person” is important to determining the intent of the statement as a whole.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the Constitution, I’m just making the argument that the second amendment has been interpreted different ways by people of different political leanings. To be viewed a legal dogma is shortsighted. This makes the discussion about universal gun ownership open to anyone who wishes to demonstrate their position with facts. To simply assert that it’s your second amendment right and case closed only shows that you cannot defend yourself with logic and reason.[/quote]

There are myriads of studies that gun control does not lead to less gun violence, if anything there is more violence when citizens have no guns.

You seem to forget though that in the US they do not have to prove to you anything. They have the second amendment which is pretty straight forward. This is not “viewed as a legal dogma” this actually is a legal dogma.

There is very little when it comes to facts to dispute this, the US constitution has a certain history, mainly Lockes “Treatise on Government II” and preambles were quite common back then like in the Declaration of Independence.

The Lockean, more or less classical liberal tradition does not give natural “rights” to collectives like militias or the “people”, only to persons and they come together to form governments to protect these rights.

This is why the second amendment simply acknowledges the right instead of granting it.

Which does of course mean that even if governments prevent their citizens from keeping and bearing arms they still have that right.

190

[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
The fact that the second amendment starts with “A well regulated militia…” and lacks the specificity “person” is important to determining the intent of the statement as a whole.

Do you feel the same way about the 1st and 4th, then? They use ‘people,’ instead of ‘person.’
[/quote]

From what I just looked up, in the 1st “the people” does refer to the right of a collective to peaceful assembly. I don’t see a contradiction.

In the 4th, there is explicit use of the term “…in their persons”.

191

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
The fact that the second amendment starts with “A well regulated militia…” and lacks the specificity “person” is important to determining the intent of the statement as a whole.

Do you feel the same way about the 1st and 4th, then? They use ‘people,’ instead of ‘person.’

From what I just looked up, in the 1st “the people” does refer to the right of a collective to peaceful assembly. I don’t see a contradiction.

In the 4th, there is explicit use of the term “…in their persons”.[/quote]

“THEIR persons,” with ‘their’ referring to the beforementioned “people.”

Your argument seems to be that because ‘person’ is not used, the 2nd doesn’t lay out a right for the individual. That instead, the right to keep and bear arms rests with some unknown and designated (by the government) people with a capital P. You mustn’t view the 1st and 4th as individual rights, either.

192

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

From what I just looked up, in the 1st “the people” does refer to the right of a collective to peaceful assembly. I don’t see a contradiction.

[/quote]

But individuals don’t have this right?

193

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?

You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to carry a weapon. They typically weigh much less than your wife.

Is that your idea of a rebuttal? You are comparing an adult woman to a 3 year old child.

I feel like I have to give you an example to show how retarded your argument is: I claim an adult woman should be allowed to have sex. Your reply “You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to have sex.”

No wonder push won’t give you the time of day.

This is typical of what people from the commonwealth come up with. Since they can’t support their ideology with logic they resort to histrionics. They come up with ridiculous scenarios and ludicrous exagerations.

What he is demonstrating is brain washing. I can guarantee you that if you were to put him in a room with Cockney Blue some, other Brits and some Australians they they could go back and forth for hours making the most absurd suggestions and it would make complete sense to them to be asking ridiculous questions about scenarios that are completely unrealistic.

Histrionics must be a new word that you’ve learned recently. This from a guy who just posted a ridiculously long list of glassing incidents in the UK to support his statement. You are a hypocrite.[/quote]

Do a google search for histrionics, Sifu, CockneyBlue, you will see I have used that word many times before.

That was a short list of glassing incidents, there were over 5000 last year. That is over a hundred a week. I posted it to refute your silly arguement that ones chances of getting glassed in Britain were nil.

If anyone here is a hypocrite it is YOU! You are the one who has been complaining that we aren’t bringing evidence to support what we are saying so now I have. And now you are whining like a little bitch about it.

By the way the link I provided with that was the link to a twenty five page thread where we thoroughly went through all of this with another subject of the commonwealth. People have been telling you we have had these discussions before and you have been asking for a link so I gave you one.

194

[quote]orion wrote:
There are myriads of studies that gun control does not lead to less gun violence, if anything there is more violence when citizens have no guns. [/quote]

Where are these studies? Can you submit a link to one of them? Or are you going to use the “go find it yourself” B.S. that is so prevalent in this thread?

[quote]orion wrote:
You seem to forget though that in the US they do not have to prove to you anything. They have the second amendment which is pretty straight forward. This is not “viewed as a legal dogma” this actually is a legal dogma. [/quote]

I get that they do not have to prove anything to me. That’s fine if you feel that way. Choose not to post then. I have the freedom to write whatever I want and to discuss what I wish, so I take advantage of it.

Do you not see the contradiction in calling an amendment legal dogma?

[quote]orion wrote:
There is very little when it comes to facts to dispute this, the US constitution has a certain history, mainly Lockes “Treatise on Government II” and preambles were quite common back then like in the Declaration of Independence.[/quote]

The preamble for the Constitution precedes the Articles. An article or amendment does not contain preamble.

[quote]orion wrote:
The Lockean, more or less classical liberal tradition does not give natural “rights” to collectives like militias or the “people”, only to persons and they come together to form governments to protect these rights.

This is why the second amendment simply acknowledges the right instead of granting it.

Which does of course mean that even if governments prevent their citizens from keeping and bearing arms they still have that right.

[/quote]

I’m not arguing against natural rights. I don’t see owning a handgun as a natural right any more than driving a car is a natural right. These things are privileges and must be regulated by the government to protect the rights of all persons.

195

[quote]Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?

You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to carry a weapon. They typically weigh much less than your wife.

Is that your idea of a rebuttal? You are comparing an adult woman to a 3 year old child.

I feel like I have to give you an example to show how retarded your argument is: I claim an adult woman should be allowed to have sex. Your reply “You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to have sex.”

No wonder push won’t give you the time of day.

This is typical of what people from the commonwealth come up with. Since they can’t support their ideology with logic they resort to histrionics. They come up with ridiculous scenarios and ludicrous exagerations.

What he is demonstrating is brain washing. I can guarantee you that if you were to put him in a room with Cockney Blue some, other Brits and some Australians they they could go back and forth for hours making the most absurd suggestions and it would make complete sense to them to be asking ridiculous questions about scenarios that are completely unrealistic.

Histrionics must be a new word that you’ve learned recently. This from a guy who just posted a ridiculously long list of glassing incidents in the UK to support his statement. You are a hypocrite.

Do a google search for histrionics, Sifu, CockneyBlue, you will see I have used that word many times before.

That was a short list of glassing incidents, there were over 5000 last year. That is over a hundred a week. I posted it to refute your silly arguement that ones chances of getting glassed in Britain were nil.

If anyone here is a hypocrite it is YOU! You are the one who has been complaining that we aren’t bringing evidence to support what we are saying so now I have. And now you are whining like a little bitch about it.

By the way the link I provided with that was the link to a twenty five page thread where we thoroughly went through all of this with another subject of the commonwealth. People have been telling you we have had these discussions before and you have been asking for a link so I gave you one.[/quote]

I called you a hypocrite because you rant about the use of histrionics and then use the same shit yourself. You are still a hypocrite.

Thank you for posting a link to that thread. I didn’t think it was in response to my request for a link to an earlier thread which discusses this issue because you lead into the link with histrionics about glassing in the UK. I’ll review the posts and get back to you.

196

[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

From what I just looked up, in the 1st “the people” does refer to the right of a collective to peaceful assembly. I don’t see a contradiction.

But individuals don’t have this right?[/quote]

How does a person have the right to assemble, unless he/she is in pieces?

197

[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
The fact that the second amendment starts with “A well regulated militia…” and lacks the specificity “person” is important to determining the intent of the statement as a whole.

Do you feel the same way about the 1st and 4th, then? They use ‘people,’ instead of ‘person.’

From what I just looked up, in the 1st “the people” does refer to the right of a collective to peaceful assembly. I don’t see a contradiction.

In the 4th, there is explicit use of the term “…in their persons”.

“THEIR persons,” with ‘their’ referring to the beforementioned “people.”

Your argument seems to be that because ‘person’ is not used, the 2nd doesn’t lay out a right for the individual. That instead, the right to keep and bear arms rests with some unknown and designated (by the government) people with a capital P. You mustn’t view the 1st and 4th as individual rights, either. [/quote]

In the 2nd their is clear indication that the People refers to the State collective. It appears to me to refer to the right of the State to have a regulated separate militia from the federal level government.

Again, 18th century “bear arms” refers to tools of warfare. Does the individual have the same right to tools of warfare as the US government? Does any person have a god-given right to a nuclear bomb?

198

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

From what I just looked up, in the 1st “the people” does refer to the right of a collective to peaceful assembly. I don’t see a contradiction.

But individuals don’t have this right?

How does a person have the right to assemble, unless he/she is in pieces?[/quote]

But now I can say the same of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. How can the people keep and bear arms if the person can’t?

199

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
In the 2nd their is clear indication that the People refers to the State collective. It appears to me to refer to the right of the State to have a regulated separate militia from the federal level government.

?[/quote]

What do you mean, “the state collective?” What is that? Are you saying the Bill of Rights, that’s what we’re talking about here, gives the state the right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to the people themselves? What is this state collective?

200

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

From what I just looked up, in the 1st “the people” does refer to the right of a collective to peaceful assembly. I don’t see a contradiction.

But individuals don’t have this right?

How does a person have the right to assemble, unless he/she is in pieces?[/quote]

Wait, are you suggesting the individual doesn’t have the right to assemble?